268

CHAPTER VI

TOWARD A MODEL OF SPIRITUAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

This chapter will conclude this dissertation by drawing connections among what we have

discovered from different sources – psychoanalytic, anthropological, cultural, and theological –

in order to formulate an effective theological model of spiritual and psychological development

for contemporary Korean Christians that can deal with three major challenges – narcissism, the

identity formation, and the embodiment and practices. These three interconnected challenges

have crucial themes that need to be transformed through a theological model of spiritual and

psychological development: 1) narcissism and Korean culture-bound emotion, jeong-han

(intrapsychic); 2) absence of adequate sources, methods, and models of spiritual and

psychological development (interpersonal); 3) family or primary caregiving matrix: problems of

emotional support and response (the formation of the self); 4) faith community: hierarchical,

oppressive, and unhealthy interpersonal dynamics and boundaries (religious identity formation);

5) community: loss of communal value and intergenerational identity formation process (cultural

identity formation); and 6) society: fragmentation of norms as shaping or directing forces

(religious practices).

In order to effectively deal with these crucial issues, there are key principles that are

learned from FDT, self psychology, practice theory, Korean cultural value of jeong, and

Wesleyan theology. Each theory made notable contributions and also showed limitations.

Overall, Wesleyan theology provides the most comprehensive theory that covers all three major

269

challenges of Korean spiritual and psychological development. Key principles from these

sources are: 1) a paradigm shift of models of God and divine-human, human-human relationship

to a more horizontal, egalitarian, intimate, and interdependent dynamics; 2) a concrete process of

intrapsychic and interpersonal divine-human and human-human dynamics; 3) the genuine

meanings of grace and jeong as both enduring power or energy and free gift for interpersonal

dynamics and growth; 4) comprehensive methods and sources in ritual and daily practices that

includes grace and jeong for the formation of cognition, emotion, and practices; and 5) a

dynamic and harmonious model of group and community.

As an ideal matrix for spiritual and psychological development that includes these key

principles, I propose a long-term small group dynamic model that is the combination of spiritual

discipline and group psychotherapy. It is small enough to provide an intimate dynamics like

those of family or friends, while large enough to have diverse interpersonal interactions in a

group, which is a social microcosm. The foundational principles of this egalitarian, dynamic

model are mutual unconditional acceptance, trust, and respect, as well as sharing and practicing

grace and jeong, which are ultimate glue and energy in order to fill the hunger and deficiency of

human beings and to facilitate interpersonal interactions. In the following section, I will explore

foundation and mechanism of contemporary encounter groups and of group psychotherapy, the

similarities and differences between them, and the usefulness and limitations of these secular

small groups. Then, I will provide examples and benefits of the enhanced group dynamic model

as the combination of spiritual discipline and group psychotherapy in which grace and jeong are

the main sources.

Contemporary Encounter Groups and Group Psychotherapy

270

As selling spirituality has been a booming business in contemporary society, the method

of group meetings and dynamics has been flourishing in different names with similar focuses and

goals such as encounter groups, self-help groups, and group psychotherapy. The method of small

group dynamics has been a popular tool both in church and secular settings. However, it is

important to figure out the theoretical and practical foundation and central mechanisms of these

small group dynamics in order to adopt some important aspects of the method for a model of

Korean spiritual and psychological development.

In his extensive research on group psychotherapy, Irvin D. Yalom, a well-known

psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who retired from Stanford University, points out the significant

overlap between group psychotherapy and other small groups often called encounter groups in

terms of basic mechanism, process, and goal. In the early 1990s, about forty percent of adults in

the United States were involved in weekly small group meetings for a minimum of three years in

at least one of three million small groups across the nation.1 Those small group meetings include

Bible study groups, adult Sunday school programs, book clubs, hobbies, and self-help groups

such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Recovery, Inc., Compassionate Friends, Survivors of Incest, to

name just a few.

Those diverse small group meetings can be grouped under a rough, generic name,

“encounter group,” which flourished in the 1960s and 1970s.2 The mechanism of the encounter

group is based on Carl Rogers’s psychology of the 1960s. Encounter groups encompass diverse

variations of groups with similar processes and dynamics such as human relations group, T-

groups (training in human relations), personal growth groups, human potential groups, and so on.

1 Irvin D. Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy, 4th Edition (New York: Basic Books,

1995), 482. 2 Ibid., 486.

271

in

dynamics.

The size of the groups is often eight to twenty, which is an ideal size for intimate interpersonal

interactions.

The encounter group values self-disclosure, expression of emotions, trust, confrontation,

and here-and-now experience. It strives for “some change – in behavior, in attitudes, in values, in

lifestyle, in self-actualization; or one’s relationship to others, to the environment, to one’s own

body.”3 The participants are not regarded as patients because they are not necessarily in therapy

but are involved in the small group meeting for growth.

The common ground of these encounter groups is their helpful therapeutic factors

through “interpersonal interactions of the group.”4 Church programs and secular self-help groups

are almost identical in this aspect regardless of purposes, goals, and names. Participants in both

secular self-help groups and church small groups enter into these meetings with almost the same

degree of personal problems, crisis, anxiety, guilt, depression, and existential questions about

their lives.

A major difference is the “spiritual domain” as Yalom calls it. About sixty-eight percent

of church program participants had an intention of joining the small group because of their desire

for deeper spiritual awareness and discipline, whereas fifteen percent of self-help group

participants did so.5 Sixty percent of church group members answered that they are in the

process of spiritual formation, while thirty-seven percent in self-help groups said that they are

the process of a spiritual journey. Although these proportions are different between the secular

and church groups, both groups have both spiritual and psychological aspects in the group

3 Ibid., 486. 4 Ibid., 482. 5 Ibid., 482.

272

Small groups were not a modern invention by secular psychotherapists. Throughout the

history of Christianity, as well as those of other religions, small groups and religious

communities have been a major matrix and means for spiritual discipline. Small groups also have

the ideals and values of Christianity – mutual love, support, care, and koinonia – as its core

dynamics and process. During the 1960s and 1970s, however, small group meetings in both

church and secular settings made “much explicit use of encounter technology . . . a familiar

behavioral technology,” which emphasized “personal exploration, identification and expression

of feelings, and genuine member intimacy.”6

The encounter group provides a powerful technique of “experiential learning” in human

relationships. Participants in the group can learn human relationships by observing and studying

the mutual interactions among members in the group, which is similar to the mechanism of

“here-and-now” experience in contemporary group psychotherapy. There must be a strong sense

of trust among participants within the group in order for it to help provide a safe refuge and

motivation of each participant for change. The encounter group has developed useful techniques

for feedback for closely examining inner and interpersonal struggles and pathogenic beliefs, as

well as encouraging observant participation and providing cognitive aids for recognizing and

learning.

The encounter group identifies itself as “group therapy for normals” or a “social oasis”

working with “normal healthy members of society . . . who had achieved considerable success.”7

It emphasizes human potential, personal growth, and human development by stressing the

authentic encounter with others including the group leader in the group. In evaluating the

effectiveness of the group, Yalom points out that it is certainly capable of influencing significant

6 Ibid., 483. 7 Ibid., 491.

273

changes, “but for both better and worse.”8 Changes remain in many participants over a certain

period of time when the leader is provides effective group experience for participants.

The encounter group movement has influenced the techniques and process of

contemporary group psychotherapy in several ways. The most important characteristic is the dual

mechanism of cognitive learning and emotional change that the participants experience in group

dynamics. In addition, some techniques of the encounter groups such as the experience of here-

and-now, feedback, observant participation, and the role of the leader or therapist have been

adopted by group therapy.

The encounter group and group psychotherapy share similar goals and concerns. Both

groups have a positive expectation about human potential and the growth of the individual

through interpersonal dynamics in the group. They both aim to provide notable changes in an

individual participant’s self-control, self-awareness of one’s behavior, acceptance of others,

confidence, increased interdependence, social interpersonal skills, and so on. Similar to the

encounter group that identifies itself as “group therapy for normals,” group psychotherapy also

began treating more and more individuals with minor problems and life issues. This broadening

of potential participants has caused an overlap of those who seek to provide group experience.

Licensed clinicians have become more and more at the ethical issues and risks of group

treatments provided by uneducated and unskilled group leaders.

There are also differences between the encounter group and group psychotherapy in their

settings. The encounter group tends to be larger about ten to sixteen or eight to twenty members.

Participants often stay with each other for a week or two, and participate in several sessions per

day. The setting is often much more informal and relaxed than that of group psychotherapy, and

8 Ibid., 495.

274

erent.

the span of the meeting is much shorter. The participants often experience pleasure in the group

dynamics with an informal setting, and the leader is also a member of the group. The participants

are often relatively healthy individuals who want to grow further by gaining more confidence or

seeking a release from stress, anxiety, or a depressive mood.

The most notable differences are the composition, goal, and process of the group. As

Yalom points out, the patients of group psychotherapy have “different goals, more deeply

disrupted intrapersonal and interpersonal relations” and “a different (closed, survival-based)

orientation to learning.”9 The degree of suffering and the atmosphere of the group are much

more serious in group therapy than those of the encounter group. Thus, the procedure of the

group, especially working-though process, in every stage of therapy is diff

Group psychotherapy in different traditions is firmly based on the almost identical

mechanism of change. In his many years of experience as a psychotherapist and researcher,

Yalom claims that the goal and fruit of the group psychotherapy is not “cure,” which is an

“illusion,” but instead “change” or “growth.”10 The original type of group therapy was a

heterogeneously composed group, chosen by the therapist, aimed at intensive group dynamics

and working-though experience. It had the ambitious dual goals of both “symptomatic relief” and

“characterological change.”11 It provided a comfortable, safe matrix for patients’ free

interactions with others through which they could recognize and identify their own problems and

change their problematic interpersonal patterns. Moreover, the group therapy can be a useful tool

for deeper, fundamental changes in a person’s character.

9 Ibid., 510. 10 Yalom, preface to Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy, xii. 11 Ibid., xii.

275

According to Yalom, the most important foundation for group psychotherapy is to

provide and maintain hope for the patients who struggle with despair and meaninglessness.

Group psychotherapists often instill trust, belief, and confidence in the treatment process of the

group, which can facilitate motivation for the patients to attend and to experience change. The

group therapy works as the place for mutual encouragement, learning, and change because the

simple observation of the significant improvement of others itself is an effective and therapeutic

experience.

A therapy group works best when trust, acceptance, empathy, comfort, and warmth exist

between the therapist and patients as well as among group members. It is essential for the

participants to feel the sense of belonging, being unconditionally accepted (grace and jeong), and

being highly valued by others. Group cohesiveness is the necessary condition of the group

therapy. “We-ness” (i.e. jeong) among group members promotes stronger mutual care and

support and deeper group dynamics.

The basic process of group therapy is giving accounts of their situations and struggles.

Group members share their moments of success and their struggles. While listening to others’

accounts, they recognize the fact that they are not alone in struggling with their own pathogenic

beliefs, thoughts, problems, and impulses. In listening to others’ accounts, patients get

information and explicit instruction from the therapist and other patients. In this aspect, group

psychotherapy employs the approach and mechanism of cognitive therapy. In the dynamic

interactions, patients often receive direct advice from others. The content of direct advice may

not be beneficial, but patients experience a sense of mutual caring and interest felt in the process

of interpersonal interactions.

276

In interpersonal dynamics, patients can experience the heightened sense of self-esteem

and self-value in realizing that they have something to give for others such as direct advice and

confirmation of the universality of others’ problems. In other words, patients are growing and

changing by giving. Many patients often have the misconception that they are not valuable to

others. Patients who struggle with low self-esteem and a lack of confidence can recognize and

feel that they actually have value. Thus, patients are helpful to each other by offering insight,

suggestions, assurance, and support. As intimacy and trust are being built into the group

dynamics, patients often provide accurate and frank, both positive and negative, interpersonal

feedbacks to each other about the tendency, attitudes, and habits of others. Because the therapy

group itself is a social microcosm, differences in age and life experiences can play an important

part in providing accurate feedback to each other. Older members with better social skills and

more life experience and empathy for others often play crucial roles. Patients recognize the

therapist as a paid professional, but fellow patients are like friends or family members in the real

world.

Group psychotherapists interpret mental disorders as disturbed or distorted interpersonal

relationships in group, family, or community. Thus, the goal of group therapy is to change or

correct the disturbances or distortions in the interpersonal relationships. Group therapy is highly

beneficial for those who have experienced disturbances in being raised in chaotic, dysfunctional

families. In attending group dynamics, participants correct these wounds inflicted from their

primary families in early childhood. Yalom named this process “the corrective recapitulation of

the primary family group.”12

12 Ibid., 13.

277

Group therapy provides the unique experience and dynamics of a genuine family by

furnishing intimate relationships, strong emotions, siblings, parental figures, sibling rivalry, and

competition. In this quasi family, participants make dynamic interactions with others in the ways

reminiscent of the patters of behavior in their early childhood. In group dynamics, patients also

imitate or identify the exemplary behaviors of other patients and therapist such as supporting

others or self-disclosing to others. Imitating and identifying have therapeutic impacts.

Group therapy provides the corrective experience for both pathogenic beliefs and

disturbed emotions. In other words, the therapy is most effective when it facilitates both

cognitive and affective components in the therapeutic process. The corrective experience also

happens in individual therapy, but the group setting provides an ideal environment to facilitate

the corrective experience. When the participants experience the group as a supportive and safe

place to exchange frank feedback with each other, it becomes a great place for experiencing the

process of the corrective experience. Not only can patients express their own emotions, but a

supportive group will allow for the full and honest expression of strong emotions. The patient

then evaluates the incidence through the consensual feedback from others, and can recognize the

inappropriateness of certain behaviors and feelings. As a result, the patient can build the

confidence to interact with others more honestly and spontaneously and with much better

interpersonal patterns and skills.

In group therapy, participants can experience catharsis through sudden, momentary relief

from their psychological suffering. Strong emotional experiences in group therapy seem to be

very effective and therapeutic. However, an emotional or uplifting experience does not

necessarily bring any change or growth whatever the intensity of the experience itself. Open

expression of the participants’ emotions is a vital factor of the process of group therapy, but this

278

factor should be complemented by a cognitive aspect so that participants can explicitly recognize

and identify their issues.

The most important role of the group therapist is simply being present with the patients.

Patients often cannot remember the interpretations of the therapist, but they do remember the fact

that the empathic therapist was with them during the tough moments of their lives. The therapy

group, as Yalom describes, demonstrates well “the double meaning of the word apartness: we are

separate, lonely, apart from but also a part of.”13 It is like being a lonely ship in a dark night. It

was “nonetheless enormously comforting to see the lights of other ships sailing the same water

though “no physical mooring could be made.”14

Yalom claims that the therapy group is a great place for the participants to explore

existential struggles such as isolation, the purpose of life, meaninglessness, freedom, and death.

In other words, group psychotherapy is an ideal place for exploring deeper spiritual issues. In

participating in the therapy group, the patients experience intimacy, support, guidance, and care

from others, while they also face the inevitable aloneness and distance between oneself and

others. Even though each participant can get closer to others, one must face life and death alone.

Contemporary encounter group and group therapy models share common, notable

strengths in developing a Korean theological model of spiritual and psychological development:

1) egalitarian, intimate human-human dynamic process; 2) the recognition of innate human

potential and the themes of change or growth; 3) cognitive, emotional, and behavioral

dimensions of change through interpersonal dynamics; 4) unique experiences of a genuine family

and community as social microcosm; and 5) providing hope rather than despair and

13 Ibid., 96. 14 Ibid., 96.

279

meaninglessness and dealing with spiritual and existential issues through acceptance, empathy,

trust, and the sense of belonging among group members.

In spite of these strengths, there are several areas and themes that these two group

dynamic models should be complemented by Wesleyan theological and Korean cultural themes

and methods: 1) divine grace and jeong as facilitating and sustaining energy; 2) egalitarian,

interdependent human-human and divine-human dynamics; 3) a concrete, long-term

developmental model of growth; 4) a strong connection between inner change and daily practices,

and between personal change and social transformation; and 5) concrete religious and cultural

beliefs, ideals, and values as the motivating and directing force for personal growth and social

transformation.

Example I: Group Psychotherapy as Spiritual Discipline

John McDargh, through his five years of experience as a group therapist and facilitator,

points out that long-term group psychotherapy can also be a spiritual discipline where divine

grace and mutual acceptance and love work strongly. In his article, McDargh portrays a poignant

process of a session in the long-term group psychotherapy that he had led for five years.15 It was

secular group psychotherapy, but McDargh found out the intersection of psychological healing,

spiritual support, and the exploration of personal experience.

McDargh’s clients are perfect examples of jeong-han, narcissism, and depression who

had struggled with the powerful emotion of shame. They have issues of the fragmentation of the

self, problems of identity formation, and struggles in interpersonal interactions that are the major

challenges in the Korean culture. These major issues are partly due to their experiences of

15 John McDargh, “Group Psychotherapy as Spiritual Discipline: From Oz to the Kingdom of God,” Journal of Psychology and Theology 22, no. 4 (1994): 290-299.

280

growing up in dysfunctional, chaotic family. His clients share the similarities with Kohut’s

encounter of new type of clients with narcissistic traits who were mostly successful professionals

with neurotic suffering such as emptiness, shame, loneliness, mixed feelings of self-esteem and

inferiority simultaneously, and lack of joy. In early childhood, they adopted a pattern of behavior

in order to take care of their parents’ feelings and please them. In a Korean term, they had noon-

chi, which is being sensitive to and figuring out others’ emotions and perceptions rather than

focusing on one’s own emotions and needs.

The group members are “middle class, and (most) middle-aged white men with the

education and talent.”16 They are successful professionals with good education, gifts, and talents

who work as business executives, government bureaucrats, city planners, and university

administrators. However, they experienced a chaotic childhood by growing up in abusive and

dysfunctional families, especially in alcoholic families. The clients experience the feeling of

emotional emptiness and narcissistic depletion. They easily feel a deep impairment and

emptiness and are unable to have and recognize real and authentic emotions.

McDargh points out that it is necessary to get to know that “one had feelings,” which is

“no small step.”17 He describes his discovery of the inner condition of his clients as follows:

Indeed, as I have begun to understand more about the condition of growing up on a “dysfunctional” or abusive family, I could see more clearly that for all of them in the group to some degree, and for some men to a very great degree, there was a profound impairment in the ability to be aware of their own flow of affect. The necessary adaptations they made to childhood patterns of physical or emotional abuse, unpredictable parenting, and violent or emotionally chaotic households involved learning to pay attention to the moods of others but to be oblivious to their own.18

16 Ibid., 294. 17 Ibid., 292. 18 Ibid., 292.

281

The group members often felt a deep sense of responsibility for their parents and siblings

and provided life-long “habits of generous, selfless caretaking extended down to the present.”19

As a result, they found it difficult and often impossible to identify their own emotions – “what

they desired, what they felt, what they wanted for themselves.”20 Thus, it was one of the main

goals of the group therapy sessions to name and verbally express the flow of emotions at the

present moment and place.

Along with recognizing real emotions, another important task for the therapy session is to

grasp the strong sense and conviction of one’s own identity – religious, cultural, and sexual

orientations and identities. In group therapy sessions, McDargh identifies his own role not as a

therapist but as a “servant of its process.”21 The dynamics of group members also provided

egalitarian, mutual learning experience for both therapist and group members. McDargh himself

explores his own identity as a gay, Roman Catholic, middle-class white man, with great talent

and education. For all of the participants, it was a moment of asking the question “who am I on

this journey?”22 It is like taking a path home by realizing the deepest emotions and desires in

one’s hearts and minds.

McDargh, as the therapist of the group, focused on psychodynamics of the group

members and the mutual interactions among them. He knew the issues of their feelings of

emotional emptiness and narcissistic depletion. In group psychotherapy, McDargh tried to help

them 1) to recognize the dynamic and flow of the real and authentic emotions within themselves

so that they could identify and express those emotions; 2) to figure out unconscious relational

conflicts and interpersonal dynamics; 3) to seize their own desire and longing for themselves

19 Ibid., 292. 20 Ibid., 292. 21 Ibid., 291. 22 Ibid., 296.

282

rather than taking care of the emotions of significant others around them; and 4) to grasp the

strong sense and conviction of one’s own religious, cultural, and sexual identities through which

therapist and patients all experienced mutual learning and growth.

McDargh employs group format because he wanted to figure out not only one’s own

emotions but also clues for unconscious relational conflicts and interpersonal dynamics among

participants. In each group session the participants, including the therapist, experience the

profound sense and deep interactions of unconditional acceptance, love, jeong, and grace. The

participants show care and courage for others, though they neither offer any word of affirmation

and encouragement such as hope nor provide specific solutions. They neither condemn nor judge

others. What the participants do for a particular participant is simply recognize and share “what

they have seen” in the person’s life and “how he has endured and prevailed” in the long journey.

It is the recognition of one’s faithfulness and survival.

Moreover, McDargh evaluates that the participants experience “both a psychological

achievement and a gift of grace.”23 The group sessions have been a place where participants

experience a deeper sense of God’s grace as McDargh describes: “grace is everywhere . . . how

homely and hospitable God turns out to be.”24 In that sense, the group psychotherapy also

becomes spiritual experience and discipline. In the group dynamics, participants experience

mutual interdependence among human actors and in between God and human actors: “I am a

part of you and you are a part of me because we belong to Christ and Christ belongs to God.”25 It

is also a great time for the participants to accept their own identity as who they are rather than

being obsessed and struggled with the standard of perfection of a good person in the society and

23 Ibid., 297. 24 Ibid., 295. 25 Ibid., 297.

283

culture. The goal is to embrace one’s own life as it is, thus recognizing that there is no need to

despair.

In the psychotherapeutic process in a secular setting, McDargh noticed both

psychological achievement and spiritual growth not only for the patients but also for himself,

though his original goal of the meeting was psychological change of participants. He had led a

group psychotherapy session in a secular setting with seven men for the past five years. The

group provided a sense of safety, belonging, and family, and behaved as a kind of a quasi family.

Most of all, it was a place where all participants could experience the gift of God’s grace and

unconditional acceptance, trust, care, and jeong.

McDargh’s group psychotherapy session is a good example of common strengths of

contemporary encounter group and group psychotherapy models. Moreover, his group session is

a stronger model than other secular group models because the group dynamic effectively

channels the work of divine grace in human-human and divine-human dynamics. However, this

model of psychological and spiritual development also does not provide a concrete

developmental process of religious and cultural identity formation, and a strong connection

between personal change and social transformation. These are the areas that contemporary

Methodist model effectively works.

Example II: Spiritual Discipline as Group Psychotherapy

Small group model was a distinct method of early Methodist movement in the eighteenth

century in England. Wesley divided a Methodist society, which is a local church in the

contemporary sense, into small groups called classes and bands. These two types of small groups

284

are similar to encounter group or group psychotherapy in the contemporary sense and were an

effective model for spiritual and psychological development of early Methodists.

In the Methodist tradition, there exists a contemporary descendant of class meetings and

bands; the “covenant discipleship group.” It is a weekly meeting which consists of up to seven

persons recently rejuvenated. They meet together for an hour each week in order to mutually

hold themselves spiritually accountable to one another. They engage in these weekly meetings

and share with each other by means of the covenant that they have written.

The pioneer of the covenant discipleship group is David Lowes Watson who wrote a

doctoral dissertation on it at Duke University and developed and organized the first group in

1975 at Holly Springs United Methodist Church in Holly Springs, North Carolina.26 Interestingly,

it was around the same time when James W. Fowler was developing his FDT as a response to the

struggles of people and society at that time. Watson himself evaluates covenant discipleship

group as “appropriating methods of our forebears, not merely copying them.”27 Steven W.

Manskar, who was a student of Watson and Director of Accountable Discipleship at the General

Board of Discipleship of the United Methodist Church in Nashville, TN, evaluates the covenant

discipleship group as follows:

Covenant Discipleship, today’s entry point for Accountable Discipleship, is an adaptation of the early Methodist class meetings. It is not an attempt to re-create an eighteenth-century model and apply it to the twenty-first century. In Covenant Discipleship we have lifted out the pieces of the class meeting that are most needed for Christians of today: mutual accountability and support. While elements of the class meeting, such as prayer and Bible reading, are recommended components, they are not the main thing. The purpose of Covenant Discipleship is accountability, which is where people listen, ask questions, and support and help one another as they are formed as disciples of Jesus

26 Gayle Turner Watson, Guide for Covenant Discipleship Groups (Nashville: Discipleship Resources,

2000), 6. 27 Steven W. Manskar, Accountable Discipleship: Living in God’s Household (Nashville: Discipleship

Resources, 2000), 7.

285

Christ. Accountability is distinctive to Covenant Discipleship because disciples need the encouragement and support it affords.28 Thus, the major component of the covenant discipleship (CD) group is talking about

accountability – about “how one has lived his or her life” in light of the group covenant created

by the members of the group.29 It does not aim at judgment or work-righteousness. It is simply

telling other group members “how your week has gone,” “what have you done,” and “what you

have not done” and allows everyone to check in with the group.30 The dynamics of the group

looks like that of a support group or group psychotherapy, however, the talking and dynamics of

group members is based on the specific covenant of the group.

The covenant of the CD group is written by group members themselves. It is the

household rules of the faith community, which is based on God’s grace. In the Methodist

tradition, the household rules are called General Rules. These General Rules are supposed to

function as a rule for living for the members of the group. It is also general in order to

“accommodate the varied experiences, interpretations, and perspectives disciples bring with

them.”31 The rule does not have a narrow ideological and theological perspective, nor is it

intended either as a form of law or as a means for works righteousness.

For Wesley, a faith community is the primary matrix and field where participants

experience God’s grace and mutual support and encouragement. A faith community is not only

the gathering of same-minded people but also a new family, a household of God in which people

live their lives according to the household rules of God. People experience grace at the moment

of baptism, which is the beginning moment of becoming a new member of God’s household. For

28 Ibid., 16. 29 Ibid., 16. 30 Ibid., 17. 31 Ibid., 26.

286

Wesley, grace is a free gift for all participants, and the forgiveness and acceptance are unlimited

and unconditional. Grace is the beginning and end of salvation: it is an unmerited, free, unearned

gift of God.

The General Rules have a well-balanced, holistic approach for the formation of the firm

religious and cultural identity of the group members, and for the transformation of their

cognitions, emotions, and practices through both rituals and daily practices. In the General Rules,

there exists a balance between the works of piety and the works of mercy and a balance between

public/social and private/personal practices. The works of piety have both public (worship) and

private (devotion) aspects, while the works of mercy also have both social (justice) and private

(compassion) aspects.

The works of piety are participating in spiritual practices such as public worship, the

sacraments, communal and individual prayers, reading and studying the Bible, and fasting or

some other form of abstinence. The works of mercy are physically practicing the General Rules

in their everyday lives. The works of piety are crucial in developing the intimate personal

dynamics with God, while the works of mercy are crucial in making the intimate personal

dynamics with other human actors.

The CD group writes its own covenant or general rules, which typically has eight to ten

clauses in four main aspects: acts of worship, devotion, justice, and compassion. The clauses are

simple sentences such as “I will seek out people in need and do all I can to help them” (acts of

compassion), “We will not be silent when confronted with social injustice” (acts of justice), “We

will practice daily devotions, including reading Scripture and praying for group members” (acts

of devotion), and “We will pray for those who visit our worship service, that they will be

touched by grace” (acts of worship). The group selects clauses that every member agrees with

287

and is willing to accept as a guideline for the group meetings. It is also possible for everyone to

add particular personal clauses if she or he wants to do.

The format, dynamics, and process of CD group meeting are similar to those of group

psychotherapy. It is a weekly meeting, and the group meets for an hour. A group has up to seven

persons. It usually begins with a short prayer for opening one’s mind and heart and experiencing

grace. Each meeting begins on time and completes on time, whether every group member arrives

at the meeting on time or not. If some members want to continue sharing and talking, they can

have informal time after they end the formal session. The rule looks somewhat strict and dry, but

the primary goal of the meeting is not fellowship but mutual accountability. The group meeting

is structured but intimate at the same time. The group members also should keep strict

confidentiality.

It is an egalitarian and intimate model. Each session has a leader or a facilitator and each

member takes turns and has a leadership role for the session. Having a leader is important for the

group dynamics of the session, though the leader does not play an authoritative role. The leader

begins the session by reading and responding to each clause of the covenant, and asks each

participant to do similarly. As the participants read each clause, they are cognitively reminded of

the covenant that they have made together. Each member tells the others how their week has

gone, what they have done, or not done in light of the covenant that they have made together.

The members also hear each others’ struggles, difficulties, and moments of joy from the past

week. The purpose is not to make judgments or assign punishments but rather it is a means of

sharing a journey together. Participants often experience sympathetic listening, understanding,

firmness, assurance, and even advice and correction.

288

The leader should keep track of time, flow, speed, and balanced involvement of each

member. All clauses in the covenant are expected to be shared at each session though as the

intimate relationships develop and the conversations get deeper, time may become a problem.

The leader should control the conversation and group dynamics so that introvert participants get

a chance to talk while overly extrovert participants are limited.

The leader has a responsibility to provide feedback to each participant’s sharing such as

offering affirmation, guidance, encouragement, or correction. Each member should acquire the

necessary skills to effectively lead the session, since everyone takes turns at the leadership role.

The relationship among all members is therefore horizontal however members must be aware of

the dangers of a leader who is not prepared or skilled enough to effectively lead the group.

The original design of CD group is formal and mechanical, and participants are expected

to share what they have done or not done rather than what they have felt.32 The group members

should share their recognitions of their daily practices, rather than their emotions and inner

struggles. However, as time goes on, and the group’s conversations get deeper, group members

often become much more open with their emotions. Moreover, personal problems can emerge in

group dynamics. As Gayle Turner Watson points out, “In the hands of a skilled professional, this

vulnerability can be used to great therapeutic effect, and often is.”33 As a result, the participants

can experience a deeper sense of friendship and communion. Although it is not the original

intention of the group meeting, spiritual and psychological bonds among group members is an

unexpected bonus.

The group meeting is closed with prayer or a simple ritual. The leader can offer a

blessing, or the group members can speak a sentence related to personal or communal concerns.

32 Watson, Guide, 46. 33 Ibid., 46.

289

Some groups close the meeting by having a moment of meditation and reflection. Some groups

have a brief ritual such as Holy Communion. There are also housekeeping items such as

announcing the next meeting’s leader, informing others of a planned absence, and raising

specific clauses on which to focus for the next meeting.

The CD group aims at growth and change in cognition, emotion, and daily practices and

becomes a place where participants can cognitively and affectively experience jeong in

interpersonal interactions with other participants and God. As the intimacy among participants is

strengthened in the dynamic process, they experience foundational trust and friendship. The

mutual interactions in the group are self-selfobject relationships develop through which

participants experience others as selfobjects from which jeong is slowly transmuted into the self.

Jeong fills the deficiency in the self, and the self becomes healthier and stronger. Jeong

continuously provide the source of energy for further growth and change. Even after the self

becomes strong, it still exists in the self-selfobject relationship throughout the lifetime of the

community. The selves in the CD group become selfobjects for others, and there exist reciprocity

and grace among human actors. In CD groups, sharing jeong is also sharing grace among group

members. Grace is a free, unearned gift that provides unconditional, unlimited acceptance and

support and is a major source of power for continuous motivation for growth and change.

The CD group itself is an effective model and method for spiritual growth, but it needs to

be complemented by the mechanism and process of group psychotherapy since psychological

struggles are often interconnected with spiritual or existential issues and also revealed in

dynamic interactions in CD group. CD groups are not effective enough in the areas of expression

of emotions and the here-and-now experience. There are some exchanges of emotions and

experience of relief and catharsis, but a CD group does not provide the best opportunities nor

290

enough time and space for participants to recognize their genuine emotions and verbally express

them as they arise in the group dynamics.

Example III: Personal Participations in Small Groups

I have been a member/facilitator of two CD groups in Nashville, TN for an academic year

and Minneapolis, MN for three years. The first group lasted a year, and there were five members:

three European-American students and two Korean students. All five members were United

Methodist clergy candidates who were also studying in the Ph.D. program in Religion or

Education at Vanderbilt University. Since we all lived on the boundary between the academy and

the church as well as between theory and praxis, we had really good group dynamics, as well as

encouragement and support from each other. It was this common religious identity as United

Methodist clergy candidates in the academy that made the group possible, despite the notable

differences in racial and cultural backgrounds.

The second group lasted for three years and each member was a member/facilitator for

each session. It was a group of six probationary elders (pastors) who were in the working toward

full membership and full ordination in the Minnesota Annual Conference of the United

Methodist Church. I was the only Asian man, while others were European-American women. We

were all in a first full-time appointment as either a lead pastor or an associate pastor to churches

in the Twin Cities and throughout the State of Minnesota. The second group was effective and

powerful as a safe, reliable, and warm holding environment where I could freely share my deeper

psychological and spiritual struggles without the fear of being judged or harshly evaluated. We

had a strong bond of friendship, jeong, sense of belonging, and the strong work of divine grace

because of our daily struggles in spiritual leadership positions in tough local congregations.

291

In both groups we used the mechanism and process of typical CD groups: mutual

accountability in light of the group covenant. We wrote a covenant together, and read it and

provided simple accounts of our own lives since the previous meeting at the check-in moment in

the beginning of each session. There was a difference in the duration of those two groups. The

first group was a homogeneous group in terms of gender, career, and religious identity, while the

second group was homogeneous in terms of a shared situation (i.e. on probation), career, and

religious identity however there were notable differences in backgrounds and life experiences

among group members.

The most notable difference in my experiences in the two different groups was the

emotional aspect of the group process. The first group was stricter and more mechanical in

following the rule of the CD group. It lasted exactly one hour after which we had to return to the

class. In attending each session I could easily recognize what I thought but it was extremely

difficult to figure out what I felt. We began with a short centering meditation and ended with

warm exchanges of hugs and handshakes.

The second group was a perfect balance of group spiritual discipline and group therapy,

though there was no licensed therapist. If it was led by a skilled professional, it could have had a

greater therapeutic effect. Each session lasted over two hours, began with a short prayer and

ended with meditation and prayer. In the second group, the expression of emotions and here-and-

now experience were more common. Nobody in the group discouraged or controlled the

expression of emotions rather it was always welcomed, accepted, and encouraged and we could

provide direct correction or advice for each other. In attending the second group, I could

recognize, feel, and name my genuine emotions that I had suppressed in my interpersonal

relationships in my ministry setting. The members of the second group all had a good knowledge

292

in the areas of spiritual discipline, theology, and psychology, and all of them openly shared their

emotions and even tears. The group members provided trust, acceptance, grace, and love for each

other.

Group members participate in a moment of focusing meditation and prayer, which takes

about five minutes. This exercise comes from my own personal experience in attending two

classes, The Psychology of Religious Development and Spirituality and Psychotherapy, taught by

John McDargh during the academic year of 1999-2000. McDargh used the focusing technique

developed by the practice and research of existential psychologist Eugene Gendlin and his

fellows at the University of Chicago. Gendlin believes that an innate and learned human ability

to monitor one’s felt sense and to clearly express it in verbal speech was the most important

precursor for upcoming constructive changes. In paying attention to one’s own breathing, an

individual can notice thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations without judging them. By

remembering or taking note of those emotions, sensations, and thoughts, one can account for

them during the group process.

As a graduate student at Boston University at the time, I knew that I was obsessed with

academic studies and easily recognized those thoughts, but I had trouble in being clearly aware

of what I desired for myself and what I felt in my heart. In attending the “breath mindfulness

exercise”34 as McDargh names it, I could identify my felt sense in my daily life, which became a

genuine source for realizing my inner struggles and changing my patterns of thinking, feeling,

and interacting with others.

In the group, similarities in religious and cultural identities and life experiences and

sharing one’s deeper thoughts, emotions, and struggles develop stronger friendships, as well as

34 McDargh, “Group Psychotherapy,” 291.

293

jeong, love, and grace among group members. After the focusing meditation is over, group

members take turns for check-in. They remind each other of the group’s covenant and share their

reflections on their lives in light of that covenant. Throughout that process, deeper feelings,

concerns, and issues are also revealed. In the beginning of the check-in time, group members talk

about their joys and concerns of the past week, their accomplishments, their appreciation for

other group members, and situations in the work place and in their family. It is a more formal,

mechanic, business-like report of one’s experiences of the past week.

However, as the group members enter into a deeper conversation, they begin talking

about their inner struggles, distortions in interpersonal relationships, disturbances in their

emotions, and even thoughts and feelings of oneself toward other group members. If the group

leader/facilitator and other members provide empathetic listening, understanding, space is

opened up for further communal exploration, reenactment, interpretation, and mutual feedback,

advice, and guidance. This is the time for exploration, analysis, and interpretation of theological

themes and psychological issues by communal wisdom of group members.

The mutual dynamic interactions of providing interpretation, feedback, encouragement,

support, and even correction, provide hope and meaning of life for each other, rather than despair

and meaninglessness. The cohesiveness of the group offers a sense of we-ness, jeong, friendship,

and family that promotes stronger support and care for each other. Recognizing the universality

of one’s own struggle as it appears in other members’ lives often gives encouragement and

support. Moreover, participants experience self-value and self-esteem in giving support, care,

and advice to others. They realize that they have something valuable to give to others as a free

gift. Most of all, group members overcome fear and loneliness by experiencing the simple,

affirmative presence of the group leader/facilitator and other members.

294

As the group session is coming to an end, the leader signals for the check-out, and the

group members share concluding remarks or reflections not only about themselves but also for

others. At this moment, group members provide wise and thoughtful comments on their

observances and experiences of others’ courage, strength, and triumphs. Before the group breaks

up, group members share housekeeping issues, exchange hugs and handshakes. They leave the

space feeling a heightened sense of courage, joy, and meaning for their lives for the week ahead.

A Model of Spiritual and Psychological Development

In the previous section, I have explored foundations, mechanisms, dynamics, and

methods of encounter groups, group psychotherapy, and Methodist CD groups, and strengths,

limitations, and differences of these similar-looking models. Out of these resources, I propose a

long-term small group setting, which is the combination of spiritual discipline and group

psychotherapy models, as a model of spiritual and psychological development for contemporary

Korean Christians and Protestant churches. The combination is necessary and powerful because

encounter groups and group psychotherapy share effective dual mechanism of cognitive learning

and emotional change, while the Methodist CD model is a powerful tool for religious and

cultural identity formation and the embodiment of religious beliefs and practices.

As previously stated, this model is small enough to provide an environment of a quasi-

family to deal with the fragmentation of the self and large enough to examine unconscious

relational conflicts and the problems of power dynamics and relational boundaries among

participants for more effective identity formation and changes in religious practices. This model

is a comprehensive tool in dealing with all three challenges, narcissism and the formation of the

self, religious and cultural identity formation, and embodiment of religious beliefs and practices.

295

This is an ideal setting for not only exploring personal, intrapsychic emotions and struggles but

also relational issues and conflicts. Interpersonal dynamics can be found by a therapist in

individual counseling setting, but directly experiencing and being observed within the group are

more powerful for the participants to realize their own struggles. It is also an effective channel to

share and practice grace and jeong, which are ultimate energies not only for intrapsychic and

interpersonal growth and change but also for the interplay of personal change and social

transformation.

The model encourages each person’s ongoing participation in a small group for mutual

strengthening and growing – even those who are relatively healthy spiritually and

psychologically. This model simply asks people to continue being faithfully on the journey with

critical questions about one’s own identity and struggles in the process of journey through the

facilitating energy of grace and jeong in divine-human and human-human interactions within the

community. It neither provides hierarchical stages and developmental frame according to

physical age and maturity nor aims at individual achievement toward the best or highest stage. It

encourages neither to worry about one’s current level of spiritual achievement nor to seek for the

next level.

There are crucial components and principles that must be included in this model of

spiritual and psychological development: 1) egalitarian, intimate, genuine family dynamic model

with trust, unconditional acceptance, empathy, and mutual communication; 2) psychological

exploration on intrapsychic emotional struggles such as narcissism, emptiness, and depression,

and interpersonal conflicts and problems; 3) spiritual and existential exploration on the purpose

and meaning of life, hope and despair, isolation, and life and death; 4) the purpose and goal of

small group model for both personal growth and social transformation; 5) firm religious and

cultural identity formation process; 6) the interconnection between religious beliefs and

practices; and 7) the powerful work of grace and jeong as the energy for healing and growth.

Friendship

Society

Sanctification

Faith Community GraceJeong

Individuals

Friendship

Jeong / Grace

Friendship

Jeong / Grace

Friendship

Change & Growth

Quasi-Family

Jeong / Grace

Jeong / Grace

Spiritual Discipline & Group Psychotherapy

296

Figure 8. Long-Term Small Group Model

Individuals – Small Groups – Faith Community – Society and World

Strengthening Self, Identity Formation, & Religious Practices

The small group model for Korean spiritual and psychological development that I

propose has several unique characteristics. First, the group will have up to seven or eight people

and will be an egalitarian and heterogeneous group in terms of gender, age, life experiences, etc.,

but the group members will have similar spiritual and psychological struggles, themes, and

situations. The participants will experience others like friends or family members. However, it is

often helpful to have either all laities or all clergy groups. As previously mentioned, there are

297

serious problems in power dynamics and relational boundaries within faith communities in

Korea, either in laity-laity or laity-clergy relationships.

Second, the group will have a spiritually and psychologically informed and trained leader

in order to provide reflections and corrective advice, but the leader is not in higher position but

also a member of the group. The group leader has an ability to deal with the psychological and

spiritual issues arising from deeply disrupted intrapersonal and interpersonal relations, though

the leader does not play an authoritative role. In the Korean cultural setting, it is still difficult to

have well-trained people in helping spiritual and psychological development. Thus, having a

group meeting is much more effective in providing professional help than having an individual

counseling.

Third, the group meeting will last up to two hours for both sharing one’s life during the

past week in light of the covenant or group rules that the group members made and a deeper

group dynamics where emotional disturbances, relational conflicts can emerge. One hour session

of the Methodist CD group is not enough for both components. The covenant or group rules will

help form group identity and the transformation of cognitions, emotions, and bodily practices of

group members in their daily lives. In leading the group dynamic process, the leader should

check the time, flow, and balanced participation of all group members.

Fourth, the group meeting will have spiritual and existential components in the beginning

and/or in the end by providing the moment for meditation, prayer, brief reading and reflection of

spiritual books or Bible, but the meeting will not be a typical style of small group Bible study or

prayer meeting. This moment is crucial in bringing attention to one's thoughts, emotions, and

struggles by providing a channel for the work of divine grace and human jeong in the group

process. For these prayer or meditation time, group members or the leader will choose the

298

method of prayer and meditation from a tradition or heritage that they want to employ. Some

groups may use the methods of contemplative prayer or focus meditation, reading a small part of

prayer books or other secular books on growth, or a short passage in the Bible for personal

reflections on one's life.

Fifth, this small group setting will work as a quasi-family. Thus, the development of a

new group needs a careful process of 1) getting to know each other, 2) sharing common goals,

visions, and situations, 3) building trust, friendship, jeong, and love, and 4) building a strong

sense of a genuine family. This group setting needs to provide a sense and dynamic of a family

where each member can support other family members in strengthening the self, forming a

particular religious and cultural identity, and challenge each other to make changes in their daily

practices.

Sixth, the group as a family will write covenant or household rules based on jeong and

grace for organizing group members’ daily lives. In the process of actually writing of the rules,

new group members will develop a strong bond and mutual acceptance among them. Driskill

points out that “the rediscovery of the spiritual significance of a Rule of Life provides another

avenue for spiritual growth” and “although the notion of a rule to guide spiritual growth and

development sounds rigid and severe in the contemporary context, it is helpful to think of rules

as guidelines for ordering daily life.”35 The term, “rule of life,” was used by monastic

communities in the Early Church and included personal and communal prayer along with daily

work and study.36 The rule of life in contemporary secular context is ordering people’s lives in

the midst of a chaotic daily schedule, and connecting people’s faith and their daily lives. Some

groups can use denominational sources such as the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal

35 Driskill, Protestant Spiritual Exercises, 88-89. 36 Ibid., 88.

299

Church or Three Simple Rules: A Wesleyan Way of Living written by Bishop Rueben P. Job of

the United Methodist Church.

Bishop Job, in his small, pocket sized book, claims that following and practicing three

simple rules – Do No Harm, Do Good, and Stay in Love with God – will change the world and is

a good way “to cut through the complexities and turbulence of everyday life” and “to overcome

the divisiveness that separates, disparages, disrespects, diminishes, and leaves us wounded and

incomplete.”37 Bishop Job also points out that these three simple rules have a deeper root in the

teachings of the Hebrew Bible, the daily lives of Early Christians, and early Methodist

movement in the 18th century England. The Methodist movement within the Church of England

rose from the social context much like our own, and John Wesley’s use of these rules of life

changed the lives of people and the society. The three simple rules are “contemporary and

exceptionally well suited to our time, our culture, and our needs today.”38

The first simple rule, Do No Harm, is to change people’s spoken words and actions that

wound and injure others. People often hurt others by simply uttering wrong words or making

wrong responses to others. Thus, it is a rule to reconsider the consequences before saying and

acting, being careful and considerate, making efforts to bring harmony, wholeness, and healing

to others in the community and wider society. Thus, simply being careful and considerate

changes people and society.

The second simple rule, Do Good, is directed to everyone, even to people who are

considered unworthy to receive any good. It is not only sharing grace and jeong but also gifting

for others’ survival and well-being. It is practicing “healthy self-denial” rather than “unhealthy

self-worship as promoted by our culture,” which encourages “greed and selfishness” and

37 Rueben P. Job, Three Simple Rules: A Wesleyan Way of Living (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007), 7. 38 Ibid., 17.

300

discourages “compassion, sharing, fairness, and commitment to the common good.”39 In other

words, the second simple rule includes both self-care and doing something good for others,

rather than devaluing or denying self for the sake of others.

The third simple rule, Stay in Love with God, is the foundation and the source of power

for first two rules and people’s daily lives as Bishop Job claims:

Staying in love with God is the foundation to all of life . . . We practice the rules, but God sends the power that enables us to keep them. We practice the rules; but God does the transforming, the renewing, and the building of the house – the house of our lives, the house of our church, and the house of our world.40 The third rule is empowered by divine grace and practiced through consistent

spiritual practices and disciplines within the faith community such as private and public

daily prayer, rituals such as worship and the Communion, reading books and reflection

on daily lives, and small group meetings that Wesley called the means of grace.

Seventh, the meeting will have a unique process. It begins on time with a brief moment of

meditation or prayer, and/or reading or reflection, whether all group members have arrived or not.

Then, each member will have a check-in time by talking about his or her life during the past

week – daily practices, thoughts, feelings, struggles, and challenges – in light of the group

covenant or rules. The check-in time is for mutual accountability, and members can provide their

thoughts, reflections, feedback, and advices for others. It is a moment when participants’ deeper

emotions, concerns, and issues are also revealed. Both during and after the check-in time, the

group will continue to have conversations and dynamics among group members so that they can

become more open with their struggles and emotions, and the patterns of interpersonal conflicts

can emerge. The intense interpersonal dynamics are possible by trust, friendship, jeong, and

39 Ibid., 45-46. 40 Ibid., 48.

301

grace, and the members should be trained and reminded of keeping strict confidentiality. This is

an important moment of the group process because it facilitates the expression of emotions, here-

and-now experience, and working-through process. Then, the group members have check-out

time. They can provide thoughts, comments, and encouragements for others. The group meeting

is closed with prayer or a simple ritual, and the members go back to their daily lives with

enhanced emotion, cognition, and energy for changing their daily practices.

Conclusion: The Significance of the Faith Community

In the previous section, I proposed a long-term small group setting, which is the well-

balanced combination of group spiritual discipline and group psychotherapy. Most of all, the

small group setting is a powerful channel for delivering grace and jeong, which are ultimate glue

or energy for the ongoing journey of spiritual and psychological development. The small group

model covers comprehensively all three areas of spiritual and psychological development:

cognition, emotion, and practices. The group dynamic effectively facilitates the process of

strengthening the self, forming the identity, changing daily practices, and eventually

transforming the larger faith community, society, and the world. In other words, the small group

model for spiritual and psychological development becomes the foundation and grassroot for

changing the society from the bottom.

The small group model works most effectively when the small groups exist within larger

faith community or when they are small churches within the church, the ecclesia, which is the

gathering of the called-out ones. The small group is the foundation and grassroot for

transforming the society and world through the change of daily practices of group members, and

the faith community becomes a bridge between small group and society. The community of faith

302

provides rich rituals and symbols, and a comprehensive way of supporting its members’ spiritual

practices, spiritual discipline, spiritual guidance, spiritual discernment, and, as a result, ongoing

spiritual development, which makes notable growth and change in personality, attitudes,

perspectives, goal and meaning of life, interpersonal relationships, and awareness and active

participation in social problems.

The ultimate goals of spiritual and psychological development are not only personal

growth and spiritual and psychological well-being but also changes of daily practices for

transforming the problems and issues in faith community and society. The larger community,

whether it is a faith community or secular society, is a new family, a household of God, which

works based on the economy of God powered by grace and jeong. The economy of God is the

right arrangement in the household for everyone’s spiritual, psychological, and economical

survival and well-being. A faith community is an instrument to serve the people and community

for their living and flourishing through its particular economy of God. In the wider sense, the

economy of God acknowledges God’s inclusive and intimate relationships with human beings in

creation. As Meeks points out, the economy of God in Wesley’s theology is prominent and “the

heart of Christian discipleship and the substance of the way of salvation.”41

Wesley’s understanding of spiritual development, sanctification, was living a life that

continuously returns God’s gift of grace and life to God and others in faith community and wider

society, which leads freedom and life for all. Wesley’s position was strongly against the

excessive accumulation and misuse of wealth because wealth discourages love of God and

neighbor, and becomes a major roadblock on the way toward spiritual development by

discouraging love of God and neighbor. Sharing wealth by gifting for the poor, especially poor

41 Meeks, “Sanctification,” 85-86.

303

families with young children is also a way of spiritual formation and development. Thus, there is

no sharp boundary between spiritual and psychological growth and social ethics, and Wesleyan

spirituality has implicit ethic of generativity. The ultimate goal of Korean spiritual and

psychological development is the interplay of personal change and communal, institutional, and

social transformations.

304

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahn, Suk-Mo. “Toward a Local Pastoral Care and Pastoral Theology: The Basis, Model, and Cases of Han in Light of Charles Gerkin’s Pastoral Hermeneutics.” PhD diss., Emory University, 1991.

Bondi, Roberta C. To Love as God Loves: Conversations with the Early Church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

. The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990.

Browning, Don S. Religious Thought and Modern Psychologies: A Critical Analysis in The Theology of Culture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

, and Terry D. Cooper. Religious Thought and Modern Psychologies. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004.

Capps, Donald. The Depleted Self: Sin in a Narcissistic Age. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Ch’oe, Kil-Song. “The Symbolic Meaning of Shamanic Ritual in Korean Folk Life.” Journal of Ritual Studies 3, no. 2 (Summer 1989): 217-233.

Cobb, Jr. John B. Grace and Responsibility: A Wesleyan Theology for Today. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995.

Doehring, Carrie. Taking Care: Monitoring Power Dynamics and Relational Boundaries in Pastoral Care and Counseling. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995.

305

. The Practice of Pastoral Care: A Postmodern Approach. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Driskill, Joseph D. Protestant Spiritual Exercises: Theology, History, and Practice. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing, 1999.

Erikson, Paul A, and Liam D. Murphy. A History of Anthropological Theory. Peterborough, Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press, 1998.

Fowler, James W. “Agenda Toward a Developmental Perspective on Faith.” Religious Education LXIX (March-April 1974): 209-219.

. Becoming Adult Becoming Christian: Adult Development & Christian Faith. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2000.

. Faith Development and Pastoral Care. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

. “Faith Development at 30: Naming the Challenges of Faith in a New Millennium.” Religious Education 99, no. 4 (Fall 2004): 405-421.

.“Faith Development Theory and the Postmodern Challenges.” The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 11, no. 3 (2001): 159-172.

. Faithful Change: The Personal and Public Challenges of Postmodern Life. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996.

. “John Wesley’s Development in Faith.” In The Future of The Methodist Theological Traditions, 172-208. Edited by M. Douglas Meeks. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985.

. Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and The Quest for Meaning. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1981.

306

Freud, Sigmund. “Mourning and Melancholia (1917).” In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Vol. 14, 243-258. Translated and edited by James Strachey. London: Hogarth, 1957.

Gay, Volney P. Joy and the Objects of Psychoanalysis: Literature, Belief, and Neurosis. New York: SUNY Press, 2001.

. “Ritual and Psychotherapy: Similarities and Differences.” In Religious and Social Ritual: Interdisciplinary Explorations, 217-234. Edited by Michael B. Aune and Valerie Demarinis. Albany, NY: The State University of New York Press, 1996.

Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, 1973.

Gerkin, Charles V. Prophetic Pastoral Practice: A Christian Vision of Life Together. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991.

Goldberg, Arnold. Advances in Self Psychology. Edited by Arnold Goldberg. New York: International Universities Press, 198o.

Gorday, Peter J. “The Self Psychology of Heinz Kohut: What’s It All About Theologically?” Pastoral Psychology 48, no. 6 (2000): 445-467.

Greenberg, Jay R, and Stephen A. Mitchell. Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983.

Hauerwas, Stanley. Sanctify Them in the Truth: Holiness Exemplified. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998.

Heitzenrater, Richard P. Mirror and Memory: Reflections on Early Methodism. Nashville: Kingswood Books, 1989.

Jenkins, Richard, ed. Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge, 1992.

307

Job, Rueben P. Three Simple Rules: A Wesleyan Way of Living. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007.

Joh, Wonhee Anne. Hearts of the Cross. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Jones, James W. Contemporary Psychoanalysis & Religion: Transference and Transcendence.

New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991.

Karen, Robert. “Shame.” The Atlantic Monthly, February 1992, 40-70.

Kim, Uichol, Kuo-Shu Yang, and Kwang-Kuo Hwang, eds. Indigenous and Cultural

Psychology: Understanding People in Context. New York: Springer, 2006. Kimbrough, S. T. Jr, ed. Orthodox & Wesleyan Spirituality. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s

Seminary Press, 2002.

Kohut, Heinz. “Forms and Transformations of Narcissism.” In The Search for the Self: Selected Writings of Heinz Kohut: 1950-1978. Vol. 1, 427-460. Edited by Paul H. Ornstein. New York: International University Press, 1978.

. How Does Analysis Cure? Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984.

. “Introspection, Empathy, and Psychoanalysis: An Examination of the Relationship

Between Mode of Observation and Theory (1959).” In The Search For the Self: Selected Writings of Heinz Kohut: 1950-1978. Vol. 1, 205-232. Edited by Paul H. Ornstein. New York: International University Press, 1978c.

. The Analysis of the Self. Madison, CT: International University Press, 1971.

, and Ernest S. Wolf. “The Disorders of the Self and Their Treatment: An Outline.” International Journal of Psychoanalysis 59 (1978): 413-425.

. “The Future of Psychoanalysis.” In The Search fort the Self: Selected Writings of Heinz Kohut: 1953-1978. Vol. 2, 663-684. Edited by Paul H. Ornstein. New York: International University Press, 1978b.

308

. The Restoration of the Self. New York: International University Press, 1977. Kwon, Soo-Young. “Codependence and Interdependence: Cross-Cultural Reappraisal of

Boundaries and Relationality.” Pastoral Psychology 50, no. 1 (September 2001): 39-52.

. “How Do Korean Rituals Heal?: Healing of Han as Cognitive Property.” The Journal of Pastoral Theology 14, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 31-45.

Lasch, Christopher. The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in An Age of Diminishing Expectations. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1979.

Leak, Gary, Anne Loucks, and Patria Bowlin, “Development and Initial Validation of An Objective Measure of Faith Development.” International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 9, no. 2 (1999): 105-124.

Lee, Jae Hoon. The Exploration of the Inner Wounds-Han. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994.

Lee, Jung Young. Korean Preaching: An Interpretation. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997.

. Shamanistic Rituals. Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1981.

Maddox, Randy. Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology. Nashville: Abingdon

Press, 1994.

, ed. Rethinking Wesley’s Theology for Contemporary Methodism. Nashville: Kingswood Books, 1998.

Manskar, Steven W. Accountable Discipleship: Living in God’s Household. Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 2000.

McDargh, John. “Faith Development Theory and the Postmodern Problem of Foundations.” The International Journal For the Psychology of Religion 11, no. 3 (2001): 185-199.

309

. “Group Psychotherapy as Spiritual Discipline: From Oz to the Kingdom of God.” Journal of Psychology and Theology 22, no. 4 (1994): 290-299.

McFague, Sallie. Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

. Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

McNay, Lois. “Gender, Habitus and the Field: Pierre Bourdieu and the Limits of Reflexivity.” Theory, Culture, and Society 16, no. 1 (February 1999): 95-117.

McWilliams, Nancy. Psychoanalytic Diagnosis: Understanding Personality Structure in the Clinical Process. New York: Guilford Press, 1994.

Meeks, M. Douglas. “Sanctification and Economy: A Wesleyan Perspective on Stewardship.” In Rethinking Wesley’s Theology: For Contemporary Methodism, 83-98. Edited by Randy L. Maddox. Nashville: Kingswood Books, 1998.

. “Trinity, Community, and Power.” In Trinity, Community, and Power: Mapping Trajectories in Wesleyan Theology, 15-32. Edited by M. Douglas Meeks. Nashville: Kingswood Books, 2000.

Miller-McLemore, Bonnie J. “The Living Human Web: Pastoral Theology at the Turn of the Century.” In Through the Eyes of Women: Insights for Pastoral Care, 9-26. Edited by Jeanne Stevenson Moessner. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

Moltmann-Wendel, Elisabeth. Rediscovering Friendship: Awakening to the Promise and Power of Women’s Friendship. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.

Ortner, Sherry B. “Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties.” In Culture/Power/History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory, 372-411. Edited by Nicholas B. Dirks et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.

310

Park, Andrew Sung. “The Formation of Multicultural Religious Identity within Persons in Korean-American Experience.” Journal of Pastoral Theology 13, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 34-50.

. Racial Conflict & Healing: An Asian-American Theological Perspective. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1996.

. The Wounded Heart of God: The Asian Concept of Han and the Christian Doctrine of Sin. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993.

Rack, Henry D. Reasonable Enthusiasts: John Wesley and the Rise of Methodism. London: Epworth Press, 1992.

Rizzuto, Ana-Maria. “Religious Development Beyond the Modern Paradigm Discussion: The Psychoanalytic Point of View.” The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 11, no. 3 (2001): 201-214.

Runyon, Theodore. The New Creation: John Wesley’s Theology Today. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998.

Schlauch, Chris R. “Empathy as the Essence of Pastoral Psychotherapy.” Journal of Pastoral Care 44, no.1 (1990): 3-17.

. Faithful Companioning: How Pastoral Counseling Heals. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.

. “The Intersecting-Overlapping Self: Contemporary Psychoanalysis Reconsiders Religion – Again.” Pastoral Psychology 42, no. 1 (1993): 21-43.

Smedes, Lewis B. Shame and Grace: Healing the Shame We Don’t Deserve. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993.

Sorenson, Clark W. “Introduction: Ritual and Modernization in Contemporary Korea.” Journal of Ritual Studies 3, no. 2 (Summer 1989): 155-165.

311

St. Clair, Michael. Object Relations and Self Psychology: An Introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2000.

Strozier, Charles B. Heinz Kohut: The Making of a Psychoanalyst. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001.

Streib, Heinz. “Faith Development Theory Revisited: The Religious Styles Perspective.” International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 11, no. 3 (2001): 143-158.

. “The Symposium on Faith Development Theory and the Modern Paradigm.” The International Journal for The Psychology of Religion 11, no. 3 (2001): 141-142.

Throop, Jason C, and Keith M. Murphy. “Bourdieu and Phenomenology: A Critical Assessment.” Anthropological Theory 2, no. 2 (2002): 185-207.

Tu, Wei-Ming. Humanity and Self-Cultivation: Essays in Confucian Thought. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1979.

Turner, Victor. From Ritual to Theater: The Human Seriousness of Play. New York: PAJ Publications, 1982.

. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1969.

Vandenberghe, Frederic. “The Real is Relational: An Epistemological Analysis of Pierre Bourdieu’s Generative Structuralism.” Sociological Theory 17, no. 1 (March 1999): 32-67.

Watson, Gayle Turner. Guide for Covenant Discipleship Groups. Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 2000.

Weiss, Joseph, and Harold Sampson. The Psychoanalytic Process: Theory, Clinical Observation, and Empirical Research. New York: The Guilford Press, 1986.

312

Wesley, John. John Wesley’s Sermons: An Anthology. Edited by Albert C. Outler and Richard P. Heitzenrater. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991.

Yalom, Irvin D. The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy. 4th ed. New York: Basic Books, 1995.

You, Young Gweon. “Seeking for Authentic Self in Community.” Pastoral Psychology 51, no. 1 (September 2002): 87-94.

. “Shame and Guilt Mechanism in East Asian Culture.” Journal of Pastoral Care 51, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 57-64.

Yrigoyen, Charles Jr. John Wesley: Holiness of Heart and Life. New York: General Board of Global Ministries, 1996.